Catch rule

This is just another reason why baseball is superior to football. The football rules are too arbitrary and changed on a whim. Baseball is baseball and it seems most of the recent changes in baseball are for player safety (no barreling over the cathcer, no nasty slides into second base on the double play). There is an element of making it up as we go along with football rules.

You joke, right? The loses contact with 2nd base on a steal for a milisecond rule is absurd.

If the goal line was not involved in that play, it would still be ruled an incomplete pass. The ball hit the ground and moved. He didn't have control. In all receiving situations, possession and control of a catch must be established no matter the location on the field.

The difference in this play and a runner crossing or diving across the goal line is the runner has or had possession prior to crossing the line. While a runner may fumble after crossing the line, the play is considered dead when he crosses. The receiver in this case had not yet established a catch with possession while crossing the line and the ball hit the ground. Even if he was fully in the endzone, the ball hit the ground and moved, confirming no control.

You joke, right? The loses contact with 2nd base on a steal for a milisecond rule is absurd.

Though it is not a new rule or even a clarification, and it a very clear on the base/off the base situation (and I agree it is absurd). But it is one of the many unfortunate consequences of expanded replay.

If the goal line was not involved in that play, it would still be ruled an incomplete pass. The ball hit the ground and moved. He didn't have control. In all receiving situations, possession and control of a catch must be established no matter the location on the field.

I disagree.I think they would have ruled his turn, extension of the ball, and dive as a "football move" and called it a catch.The fact he loses control upon hitting the ground is a question of fumble or not a fumble.

I disagree. I think they would have ruled his turn, extension of the ball, and dive as a "football move" and called it a catch. The fact he loses control upon hitting the ground is a question of fumble or not a fumble.

I don't think so. The rules, as much as we don't like them, are fairly clear about the receiver going to the ground, and I don't think they are frequently misapplied as you describe.

Of course, anywhere else on the field, with the clear goal line as his target, the receiver likely goes to the ground first, protecting the ball, before turning/extending. And anywhere else on the field, it's not an automatic review either -- keep in mind the refs on the field initially ruled this play exactly as you describe too. Both of those factors might be coloring our interpretation here.

Given the same level of review, I don't think you'd see much disparity in such calls with truly equivalent circumstances.

(Not to say that it's a good rule. Would be nice to see a looser possession standard for receptions.)

Right call, terrible rule.Runners can get the nose across and fumble - receivers need to take the ball home with them for a week like one of those practice babies in high school without dropping it before it's a TD.

The NFL rule book states in Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1," A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete."

There's apparently more in the rule book too.

I am sure they aren't perfect at applying it, but I don't get the impression that inconsistency is the biggest problem, it is just that the rule itself sets a too-high, unnatural burden on receivers.

You joke, right? The loses contact with 2nd base on a steal for a milisecond rule is absurd.

I don't like the slide rule or even the no crashing into the catcher rule. My point was they seemed to be put there for safety. In football, they make up rules on the fly, most of the time reacting to a call that went against a team like the Packers or the Cowboys in a crucial spot the previous season.

also per Rule 8 here are the conditions for completing or intercepting a pass:

a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

With the Jesse James play, the pass was completed (paragraphs a. and b.) when James caught the pass and his knee went down, and then he became a runner (paragraph c.) when he tucked the ball away after making the catch (if you notice, he does tuck the ball away for a split second before lunging for the goal line), and then when he turned up field (lunged for the touchdown).

There's nothing in the rule about "surviving the ground" or completing the process of a catch or whatever. That's just the NFL, officials, and media commentators making stuff up. Like I said, I have no idea how it got to this point.

There's nothing in the rule about "surviving the ground" or completing the process of a catch or whatever. That's just the NFL, officials, and media commentators making stuff up. Like I said, I have no idea how it got to this point.

Mostly because if you call that play a TD, there will be complaining on the other end.

But, IMO, as long as you allow runners so much deference for crossing the plane and then anything else goes.....that complaining should fall on deaf ears.

I'm bracing myself for one of these stupid rulings to kill the Vikes tomorrow.

I'm hoping the NFL addresses this mess in the offseason.it could happen, the NFL hates it when the post-Sunday conversation is dominated by officiating controversies, and that happened a lot this year.

I think there 2 main problems with the Catch Rule.

First of all, it's unnecessarily complex.As this piece points point out, while the rule defining a catch at the high school level is 51 words, the version in the NFL's rule book "contains 649 words with three lettered subsections, six numbered items, and two notes".

It's silly. They added some things a while ago in an attempt to alleviate confusion, but those additions only added confusion.Then,in their typical arrogant fashion, instead of removing the confusing additions, they kept doubling down, and tried to clarify and justify them with even more additions, thus the mess we have today.

They finally got it of the impossibly stupid Tuck Rule after years of defending it, so hopefully they see the light here.

The other problem is the overuse of replay.It's now taken to CSI levels where plays are reversed due to movements that could never be detected in real time.Replay was supposed to be limited to overturning obvious mistakes like when a receiver clearly landed out of bounds.It was not meant to be used to make fans wait 10 minutes while every touchdown catch is reviewed in slow motion from every possible angle so there could be the opportunity for a hypertechnical analysis of whether the receiver met every single one of a list of requirements.

Replay should be limited to objective determinations - in or out of bounds, did the ball hit the ground before it was caught - things like that. And if you can't tell within a minute or two of review if the call on the field as wrong - it stands.

Maybe the results would be less consistent, but right now, they are consistently stupid, and they suck all the fun and flow out of games.